Story 115

Law across jurisdictions should not enforce mediation, arbitration, or NDAs with the corporates in workplace sexual harassment cases because they undermine accountability and the public purpose of anti-harassment law. Sexual harassment is not a private contractual dispute but a violation of dignity, equality, and statutory rights. Forcing such claims into confidential processes removes them from public scrutiny, suppresses precedent, and conceals patterns of repeat misconduct. This weakens deterrence and allows institutions to treat harassment as a reputational issue rather than unlawful conduct.

The premise of voluntary consent in these agreements is often illusory due to severe power imbalances between victims and employers. NDAs in particular function to silence complainants and protect perpetrators/institutional reputation.

Serious sexual harassment cases in Asian banking institutions have reportedly been suppressed through arbitration and confidentiality clauses, enabling misconduct to persist unchecked to protect their reputation and the image that this part of the world is perfect.

Investigative reporting from media houses can surface recurring abuses, expose institutional cover ups, and trigger regulatory and public scrutiny where private law mechanisms have failed.

In certain jurisdictions, authorities act in concert to protect these financial institutions, as the backbone of the economy is closely tied to the reputational standing these regional banks maintain. Accordingly, the public exposure of long-suppressed sexual harassment cases and the scrutiny they attract risks undermining the perceived credibility and stability of these financial hubs.

Without media attention across jurisdictions, these practices remain invisible, allowing secrecy to defeat both justice and prevention.